Q What about Priscilla Owen and the confirmation hearings? First, I
want to ask you what you make of the arguments against her. And,
second, could you clarify a remark apparently made by Judge Gonzales
himself in reference to one of her decisions in which he referred to
her way of thinking as an unconscionable act of judicial activism?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President views today's hearing of Priscilla
Owen as a very important hearing. There is a judicial emergency, a
judicial vacancy crisis throughout this country, and that's because the
Senate has failed to act on many of the President's nominees. Priscilla
Owen is one of 32 circuit court nominees that the President has made,
while the Senate has confirmed only 11, leaving 21 with no action
taken. The President is very concerned about that.

In the case that you are citing, Judge Gonzales is the first to say
that he supports Priscilla Owen's appointment to the circuit courts. So
if people would want to cite what Judge Gonzales believes, then they
should be consistent and vote to support her, just as Judge Gonzales
did. Simply because they disagreed on a case does not mean she's unfit
to serve.

This is the final question you get.

Q Well, you know, these are all matters that you obviously want to
address, so let's not -- (laughter).

MR. FLEISCHER: In that case, I'll argue with myself.

Q The question of judicial activism, which would seem to go against
the President's own standard in selecting judges, is not a question for
the White House in this particular matter?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, given the fact that Judge Gonzales says
himself that because they had a disagreement over one case does not
mean she's unfit to serve. He's looking at her record in its totality,
just as the President does. And if you want to get down to the
complications of that issue or into the weeds of the issue, it is much
more complicated than the critics suggest on there. The actual opinion
with which Justice Gonzales had written that about was penned by
somebody else, concurred into by Justice Owen.

Q Ari, NARAL today in its press release on Priscilla Owen says they
want to prevent her from joining a court "already tilting far outside
the mainstream." One of the things they've taken exception to is her
rulings on Texas's parental notification law. We've heard the White
House defend Justice Owen on the grounds of judicial restraint, but
will, as this moves along, the White House take a stand on parental
notification itself, considering the fact that she was in the majority
on most of these cases and that this was a law that was overwhelmingly
favored by the Texas legislature and by the American people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The job of a justice is to enforce the laws
regardless of personal views. And groups like the one you cited
obviously have a litmus test. And this is something where hopefully the
Senate will not have its own litmus test, where one party imposes a
litmus test on the other party. Justices and judges at all levels,
their job is to interpret the laws -- is to enforce the laws and make
rulings that do not legislate from the bench.

Q Could it make it harder, though? I mean, we're in a case where --
you're always, obviously, talking about the process working, there
being civility in the process, when now we have a situation where --
Republicans generally, when a bill -- or when a judge comes to the
floor, have generally -- you know, look, for example, Justice Ginsberg
only had three Republicans vote against her. And in this
administration, we've seen Senate Democrats vote in large majorities --
or in large minorities -- against administration appointees and
judges.

MR. FLEISCHER: At a time when there are so many judicial vacancies
and judicial emergencies resulting from these vacancies, it would
indeed be unfortunate if litmus tests were imposed by the party that
receives the President's nominees, in this case the Democratic Party.
This is a time for bipartisanship on the bench.